Cartographie écopoétique des visages du Cantique des cantiques comme agencements plus qu’humains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contrairement aux interprétations anthropocentriques du Cantique des cantiques qui lisent ses références non humaines comme des métaphores descriptives d’un couple humain, cet article propose de lire cet agencement poétique à partir des concepts de « rhizome » et de « visagéité » théorisés par les philosophes Gilles Deleuze et Félix Guattari. Ce paradigme de lecture permet de mieux valoriser l’hybridité interespèce propre aux visages des amants. La lecture rhizomique du Ct permet de décloisonner les frontières des identités humaines, animales, végétales, minérales et architecturales. La fécondité de cette approche herméneutique est illustrée avec le motif particulier du « pommier » (Ct 2,3-6 ; 7,7-9 ; 8,5). Ultimement, cette expérience de lecture montre les limites du cloisonnement anthropocentrique de « la nature » et plaide pour une meilleure prise en compte de la multiplicité et de l’interconnectivité de la vie par la poésie biblique.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".